Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Below please find the excellent article on attorney's fees in the music industry by Joey Scavuzzo posted originally on https://musiclawnews.com/2020/04/01/what-entertainment-lawyers-charge-how-much-should-fees-be-for-music-attorney-services/:

WHAT ENTERTAINMENT LAWYERS CHARGE
How much should fees be for music attorney services?
Joey Scavuzzo

If you’re in the market for an entertainment attorney in the music business… Congratulations! You’re on the rise, finally getting paid for your craft and need someone in your corner looking out for your best interests. Few make it this far, but mo’ money, mo’ problems, right?

Anyone can find an attorney today. Google exists. But the bigger questions loom: what are the payment options, what should you expect to pay and is it reasonable? The barriers to this knowledge are high so let’s tear them down and empower you with all the information you need.

What are music attorney fee payment options?

According to California Legal Forms – Transaction Guide, Matthew Bender, a leading publisher of legal analysis and research information, explains that entertainment attorney fees are typically paid in one of four ways:

1.      A retainer
2.      An hourly rate
3.      A combination of an hourly rate and a percentage of your gross compensation
4.      Contingency fees based on gross income.

What should you expect to pay for a music attorney?

When it comes to an hourly rate, Donald S. Passman, author of All You Need to Know About the Music Business, Eighth Edition, states, “Most lawyers in the music business don’t charge on just an hourly basis. For the ones that do, the rates are from $150 per hour for new lawyers, up to $600 or more for biggies[1].”

Since many entertainment clients can’t afford to retain an attorney on an hourly basis, they and their attorney instead often agree to a contingency fee arrangement.

Kenneth Abdo, a partner at the firm Fox Rothschild LLP along with Jack Saul, a professor of law at University of Akron, note in their article Entertainment Law Ethics, “A customary contingent fee ranges from 5% to 10% of the defined gross compensation of the client and rarely exceeds 10%. The exact percentage depends, in part, on the client’s record for commercial or critical success and the likelihood that the lawyer’s efforts will be successful. For example, it is reasonable with a superstar to take a lower percentage of the gross compensation and with a new or “baby act” to insist on 10%. Successfully shopping a new artist to a recording contract with a small, local, independent record company is a situation in which a lawyer might charge 10% of the artist’s gross compensation.[2]

This is further supported by LAW AND BUSINESS OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES, Fifth Edition, by Donald E. Biederman, et. al. (the prevailing text used in law schools), stating,  “A customary contingency fee ranges from 5% to 10% of the defined compensation earned by the client and rarely exceeds 10%[3].” But that doesn’t mean it can’t. There is no case law or precedent defining a specific ceiling. For example, it is common for contingency lawyers in personal injury cases to take 33.33% and employment lawyers to take 40% of the total amount recovered. [4]

And this leads us to our final section…

Is your attorney’s fee percentage reasonable?

According to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), the ethical code governing attorneys, Rule 1.5(a)(1)-(8) states the attorney can consider the following criteria in determining a reasonable fee: “the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; the amount involved and the results obtained;, the experience, reputation, and the ability of the lawyer performing the services required; and whether the fee is fixed or contingent.[5]” In fact, some lawyers may require a retainer or deposit payment in addition to a percentage of the deal.[6]

What that says is that music attorneys have a lot of flexibility and protection when it comes to charging their fees. Simply put, an attorney with years of experience and a proven track record can, legally and ethically, charge higher rates.

So, when hiring a music attorney, you want a specialist, someone experienced with music contracts. They will understand the nuances of any deal. And you should want a professional who regularly deals with agents, managers, producers, and record companies. Like entertainment attorney Gordon Firemark says, “Their relationships with executives… can mean the difference between an average deal or a favorable one.[7]” But you should expect to pay a premium for this expertise.




[4] Hutchinson and Stoy, “Everything You Need to Know About Contingency Fee and No Win, No Fee Lawyers https://www.warriorsforjustice.com/everything-need-know-contingency-fee-no-win-no-fee-lawyers/
[6] Wallace Collins, “How do you know When you need an Entertainment Lawyer?” 2015. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/05/13/how-do-you-know-when-you-need-an-entertainment-lawyer/
[7] Gordon Firemark, “Assembling a Winning Team: The Entertainment Lawyer,” 2004. https://firemark.com/2004/05/24/assembling-a-winning-team-the-entertainment-lawyer/


Thursday, July 14, 2016

Worth Their Weight in Gold: The Role of the Lawyer in the Modern Music Business

Helen Yu of Yu Leseberg, A Prof Law Corporation Wins in Court of Appeals; Played Key Role in the Multi-Platinum Career of DJ Mustard


Paul A. Hebert/Invision/AP
Recently, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision backing Helen Yu of Yu Leseberg, the former attorney of Dijon McFarlane – better known as DJ Mustard – in a legal battle with his accountants over appropriate fees lawyers charge their clients. The Appellate Court’s findings support what’s still true in America: You get what you pay for. And the best lawyers are well paid and worth their weight in gold. 

While the case may seem to focus on entertainment lawyer fees, the case is really about protecting the sacred trust between an attorney and their client.

“Don’t just be in it for money,” DJ Mustard said to Forbes magazine. While he doesn’t mention her by name – much of what he discusses in the article about his start in the industry can be credited back to his legal representation by Helen Yu. This includes all of his most important deals in the music industry, including her handling deals for nearly all of his Billboard hits to date including Tyga, YG, Tinashe, Trey Songz, Kid Ink, Jeremih, Wiz Khalifa, will.i.am., 2Chainz and Roc Nation.

So here’s the skinny: Helen Yu, a veteran Los Angeles entertainment attorney started representing DJ Mustard when he was just a starting out in Los Angeles trying to make it.

Yu is one of the go-to lawyers for recording artists and has handled legal transactions for a who’s who in the industry, including Verdine White of Earth Wind & Fire, T-Boz of TLC, Snoop Dogg, Ty Dolla $ign, David Guetta and members of the Black Eyed Peas. She is a staunch advocate for their intellectual property rights and has won millions for clients, including recovering very valuable copyrights for the heirs of T. Rex front man Marc Bolan.

Yu first started representing Mustard in October 2011 when he was an up-and-coming artist living in a garage in Inglewood. Her services included representing him as a songwriter, producer, recording/performing artist and DJ, as well as helping him get one of the top premier DJ agents in the world. Knowing Mustard was not a wealthy young man and had limited resources, the two agreed to the industry standard of 10% of his gross compensation instead of Yu charging an hourly rate, which Mustard couldn’t afford. With Yu’s guidance and negotiation skills, Mustard’s career began to explode, including a lucrative song deal and a multi-million-dollar music publishing agreement negotiated by Yu.

As the initial lawsuit says, as the deals kept coming, and Mustard’s wealth grew, Yu connected him with the accounting and business management firm of Nigro Karlin Segal Feldstein & Bolno. With the accounting firm’s help, Mustard’s wealth would be well-managed. But at some point, a new accounting representative at the firm was assigned to Mustard’s account, Wallace O. Fortune. Fortune informed Mustard that Yu was over billing and claimed nobody in the industry charged 10%.

According to the lawsuit, this upset Mustard. So, in an attempt to smooth things over with her client, Yu agreed to modify the fee structure, charging just 5% on future deals with an exception: for producer and publishing deals under $30,000, Yu would receive a minimum fee of 10% [see page 9, section 32 of the complaint]. Fast forward to Mustard receiving a small check in the sum of $1869.30 from SoundExchange, which Yu had set up for Mustard. She charged him $186.93 for work on this (within the exception above) but when Fortune’s office contacted Mustard, they told Mustard Yu was overcharging him. Mustard immediately contacted Yu and ended his almost-three-year relationship with her.

So that’s the background on the issue. Shortly thereafter Yu sued Fortune and Nigro Karlin for intentionally and negligently interfering with her attorney-client relationship. Fortune and Nigro Karlin shot back by claiming their actions were protected by their free speech rights under California’s anti-SLAPP law. The motion claimed that the public had an interest in the amount of money an entertainment lawyer charges their client.

But the court disagreed. And so did the California Court of Appeals, where Fortune and Nigro Karlin appealed and lost. California Court of Appeals wrote, “This lawsuit is based entirely upon Defendant’s statement about legal fees Plaintiff charged Mustard. Those fees are not a matter of any interest to the public.”

What the case boils down to is how an accountant wrongfully interfered with a client’s legal representation, when the attorney is key to a successful career; and when the client goes from making zero to earning millions of dollars. Clearly, Yu and Mustard had a good thing.

So where is the case now? With the court of appeal’s decision, the case is back in Los Angeles Superior Court. Despite what GQ Magazine described as “…. his generally disappointing solo album, 10 Summers…” DJ Mustard is still making music.